CARLITO ANG, Complainant, ANG, Complainant, vs. ATTY.. JAMES JOSEPH GUPANA, ATTY GUPANA, Respondent. Respondent. (left to staff again (E!t"a#J$%i&ial Pa"tition of lot The lot The case stemmed from 3 an affidavit-complaint filed by complainant Carlito Ang against respondent. Ang alleged that he and the other heirs of the late Candelaria Magpayo, namely Purificacion iamante and !illiam Magpayo, e"ecuted an #"tra-$udicial eclaration of %eirs and Partition& involving a lot. %e 'as given his share of (,))3 s*uare meters, together 'ith all the improvements thereon.+ Ho'ee", ')en )e t"ie% to se&$"e a TCT in )is na*e, )e fo$n% o$t t)at sai% TCT No. (T#++-# /00 )a% al"ea%1 2een &an&elle% an% in lie$ t)e"eof, ne' ne ' TCTs T CTs/ )a% 2een iss$e% in t)e na*es of 3illia* Mag4a1o, Antonio 5ia*ante, Pat"i&ia 5ia*ante, Lolita 5. Can6$e, G"ego"io 5ia*ante, J". an% 7e 5. Monte"o. (THE REGISTER SHO3E5 AN A77I5A8IT INSTEA5 O7 A 5EE5 O7 A9SOLUTE SALE Ang allege% t)at t)e"e is "easona2le g"o$n% to 2eliee t)at "es4on%ent )a% a %i"e&t 4a"ti&i4ation in t)e &o**ission of fo"ge"ies an% falsifi&ations 2e&a$se )e 'as t)e one ')o 4"e4a"e% an% nota"i:e% t)e Affi%aitt of Loss; an% 5ee% Affi%ai 5ee % of A2sol$te A2s ol$te Sale< t)at le% to t)e t"ansfe" t"a nsfe" an% an % iss$an&e iss$an& e of t)e ne' TCTs. TCTs. Ang
pointed out that the eed of Absolute ale 'hich 'as allegedly e"ecuted by Candelaria Magpayo on April , /0/, 'as antedated and Candelaria Magpayo1s signature 'as forged as clearly sho'n by the Certification/ issued by the 2ffice of the Cler of Court of the Regional Trial Court 4RTC5 of Cebu. 7$"t)e", t)e &e"tifie% t"$e &o41 of 4age 0;, 9oo= No. >II, Se"ies of ?< of "es4on%ent@s Nota"ial Re4o"t in%$2ita2l1 s)o'e% t)at 5o&. No. ?
2efo"e 2eing 2"o$g)t to )i* fo" )is signat$"e.: This, according to the commissioner, :must have been the reason for the forged signatures of the parties in the *uestioned document;as 'ell as the erroneous entry in his notarial register;.: As s$&) nota"1 4$2li& "es4on%ent s)o$l% not %elegate to an1 $n6$alifie% 4e"son t)e 4e"fo"*an&e of an1 tas= ')i&) 21 la' *a1 onl1 2e 4e"fo"*e% 21 a *e*2e" of t)e 2a" in a&&o"%an&e 'it) R$le .-??; of t)e Co%e of P"ofessional Res4onsi2ilit1.?< the 9oard of
>rom the foregoing, it is clear that the party acno'ledging must appear before the notary public or any other person authori=ed to tae acno'ledgments of instruments or documents.(3 6n the case at bar, the $urat of the Affidavit of 7oss stated that Candelaria subscribed to the affidavit before respondent on April (/, //&, at Mandaue City. Candelaria, ho'ever, 'as already dead since March (?, //. %ence, it is clear that the $urat 'as made in violation of the notarial la'. Res4on%ent li=e'ise iolate% R$le .-?, Canon , of t)e Co%e of P"ofessional Res4onsi2ilit1 ')i&) 4"oi%es t)at Ba la'1e" s)all not %elegate to an1 $n6$alifie% 4e"son t)e 4e"fo"*an&e of an1 tas= ')i&) 21 la' *a1 onl1 2e 4e"fo"*e% 21 a *e*2e" of t)e 9a" in goo% stan%ing. Respondent averred in his position paper that it had been his consistent practice to course through clerical staff documents to be notarized . U4on "efe""al, sai% &le"i&al staff inestigates ')et)e" t)e %o&$*ents a"e &o*4lete as to t)e f$n%a*ental "e6$i"e*ents an% in6$i"es as to t)e i%entit1 of t)e in%ii%$al signato"ies t)e"eto. If ee"1t)ing is i n o"%e", t)e1 as= t)e 4a"ties to sign t)e %o&$*ents an% fo"'a"% t)e* to )i* an% )e again in6$i"es a2o$t t)e i%entities of t)e 4a"ties 2efo"e affi!ing )is nota"ial signat$"e.0- It is also )is &le"i&al staff ')o "e&o"%s ent"ies in )is nota"ial "e4o"t.
As aforesaid, respondent is mandated to observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties as a notary and to ascertain that the persons 'ho signed the documents are the very same persons 'ho e"ecuted and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and truth of 'hat are stated therein. In *e"el1 "el1ing on )is &le"i&al staff to %ete"*ine t)e &o*4leteness of %o&$*ents 2"o$g)t to )i* fo" nota"i:ation, li*iting )is 4a"ti&i4ation in t)e nota"i:ation 4"o&ess to si*4l1 in6$i"ing a2o$t t)e i%entities of t)e 4e"sons a44ea"ing 2efo"e )i*, an% in nota"i:ing an affi%ait e!e&$te% 21 a %ea% 4e"son, "es4on%ent is lia2le fo" *is&on%$&t. @nder the facts and circumstances of the case, the revocation of his
notarial commission, dis*ualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of t'o years and suspension from the practice of la' for one year are in order.3 !%#R#>2R#, respondent Atty. ames oseph urther, his notarial commission, if any, is R#B2# and he is dis*ualified from reappointment as 8otary Public for a period of t'o years, 'ith a stem 'arning that repetition of the same or similar conduct in the future 'ill be dealt 'ith more severely.
